Opinion: Stephen Bo, co -founder of Taraxa
Rollup layer 2 that represents all anger today destroys encryption or, at the latest, the very reliable nature of encryption, by quickly eroding its decentralized confidence.
The uniqueness of Crypto comes from the lack of confidence, supported by the basic infrastructure mainly in layer 1. The only way of confidence is to be completely insecure, as decisions are made in a vulgar way through a large group of nodes from all over the world, which are operated and owned by people who, in a total, have no small or non -existent contacts.
The decentralization is articulated on three columns: inclusion, demand and implementation. The network is only decentralized as its weakest column. When any of them is delivered to one decision maker, the “unreliable” brand becomes a marketing trick, and the three rollups break at the same time.
Rollups does not provide decentralized guarantees on inclusion and arrangement, and in the case of optimistic optimistic, there is no guarantee of health implementation either. Rollup L2S is absolutely a scourge for encryption.
Rollup L2S is quickly confident in encryption
there Two wide types of Rollup L2S Today: O preached and zero knowledge (ZK). Both dominate the networks where one sequence device makes all decisions. Since having one entity for this decisive task is a problem, these lists make some weak attempts to impose right, but only in terms of implementation.
Optimistic Rollups depends on a week -long “challenge”, a time watch that calls for chaos. Millions of transactions will relax if only one guide of proof, locking the capital and confidence for several days.
For ZK-Rollups, it guarantees the validity of the implementation through ZK Problars.
Related to: Ethereum is ten years old
But perfect evidence of implementation is useless when the only sequence stage can simply refuse, delay or rearrange transactions in his favor. Without public records, not changeable to those who tried to deal, and when censorship cannot be proven, and therefore, it is not possible to punish.
If the network is not able to ensure transparency, fairness and health to include and arrange it, what is the benefit of the guarantee for implementation? Since you can only implement what is included and arranged, implementation depends mainly on inclusion and arrangement. The absence of any guarantees about inclusion and implementation makes the guarantees of implementation not worthy of confidence.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?
The markets note this. Liquidity decreases through bridges that inherit the weakest assumptions of all Rolob. The network of Multisigs Multisigs and the emergency switches in emergency situations create a systematic risk that traders are now happy in asset assessments. If the “Sequney risk” deducts more, the Ether’s Monetary will suffer.
L2S decentralization simply turns it into L1s
The reversal of the common return to the fact that L2S is a central chaos is that it will be decentralized in a future history. This is an argument that defeats itself.
If you take L2 and turn it into a really decentralized network of sequences, where the series cooperate with a central unanimity consensus to provide strong guarantees on inclusion, demand and implementation, what happens? You end up with L1.
Anyone who claims that L2S can eventually be disgraced that they will turn into L1s at some point, which controls liquidity, drawings and closed total value (TVL) away from L1 (mainly ETHEREUM) which is alleged to be alleged to help expand.
The occupants of the jobs run by one serial chimneys will not see today profitable any incentive to reduce their strength.
The road to expand Ethereum is … expanding Ethereum domain
Ethereum should not be slow and expensive. Many newest consensus designs can be referred to MainNets to improve the technical functions of the network.
With TVL quickly Close $ 100 billion, it is quite reasonable that Ethereum developers are very careful when carrying out basic changes on the network’s infrastructure. However, active progress must be made towards expanding the ETHEREUM itself, not only the focus on this parasitic L2S, which is a role in roles as decentralized networks.
Funding the key promotions on production, implementation and consensus would enhance Ethereum neutrality, maintain fees revenues and restore user confidence without imposing a risk tax.
Let’s give up L2S and make Ethereum L1 scaling a priority.
Opinion: Stephen Bo, co -founder of Taraxa.
This article is intended for general information purposes and does not aim to be and should not be considered legal or investment advice. The opinions, ideas and opinions expressed here are alone and do not necessarily reflect or represent the views and opinions of Cointelegraph.
publish_date
